It's working out in favor this time, but I wouldn't assume it always will.
It seems dangerous to me that the senate that can deny a supreme court appointment to an undefined point. Scalia replacement was denied 9 months before the election. Next time it might be 12. or 15. etc. I'd be fine with saying appointments will be postponed within 9 months of a presidential election. No biggie. But, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

The POTUS's ability to appoint supreme court justices is IMO the most important thing they can do. And, the senate should not be able to block that outside of a reasonable, predetermined time frame.

The way it was discussed during the Merrit Garland attempt by Oh bummer, was that the precedent was that a federal nominee was not done during an election year (last year of a term) for a president when the Senate was controlled by the opposing party... IF the senate and president are of the same party, there's no problem. The nominee can be presented, approved and confirmed if the part so wishes.

In this case, Trump can nominate a new Justice and the senate can approve it right up to the election.

The way it was discussed during the Merrit Garland attempt by Oh bummer, was that the precedent was that a federal nominee was not done during an election year (last year of a term) for a president when the Senate was controlled by the opposing party... IF the senate and president are of the same party, there's no problem. The nominee can be presented, approved and confirmed if the part so wishes.

In this case, Trump can nominate a new Justice and the senate can approve it right up to the election.

The only thing that makes me think she is still with us is that Trump has not eluded to a vacancy. A simple tweet that even hinted at another Trump SCOTUS appointment would have completely overshadowed all of the border wall controversy and national emergency blow back. Even a rumor of that nature would send the entire progressive left and liberal media into a tail spin.

Hard to tell. Last reporting was Feb. 15th saying she's back but no pics. Not a peep about her since Feb. 15th, when all the media outlets said she's back. I really don't believe she came back or is even alive. This is like a weird movie. Boggles the mind.

ETA: The only pic they associate w/her being back Feb. 15th was actually taken Jan. 13th, 2018 @ a university in Rhode Island.

Hard to tell. Last reporting was Feb. 15th saying she's back but no pics. Not a peep about her since Feb. 15th, when all the media outlets said she's back. I really don't believe she came back or is even alive. This is like a weird movie. Boggles the mind.

ETA: The only pic they associate w/her being back Feb. 15th was actually taken Jan. 13th, 2018 @ a university in Rhode Island.

I thought she was interviewed the week of 2/15 in one of the DC airports?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the court’s decision, saying the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines clause protects against government retribution at all levels.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the court’s decision, saying the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines clause protects against government retribution at all levels.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

Odd she didn’t have the same opinion of the personal mandate’s $1,500 tax penalty...